This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - Alternative Facts
Pages: 1 ... 104105106 107108 ... 306
3151
« on: October 15, 2015, 07:09:03 PM »
Just the fact that he's been consistent on almost all of his views for the entire time that he's been a politician should show you a lot.
What about being consistently shit is admirable?
Aside from his economic policies you so vehemently oppose, what other policies of his are "constantly shit"?
Well past his economic policies, he is the exact same as every other Democratic candidate.
3152
« on: October 15, 2015, 05:52:33 PM »
Australian ships set sail for Eastern Russia
3154
« on: October 15, 2015, 12:14:59 PM »
Yeah, cite the source that the graph came from, if you will.
I'm on mobile, not going through all those sources to find it
3155
« on: October 15, 2015, 12:04:32 PM »
Care to share the link?
3156
« on: October 15, 2015, 12:00:30 PM »
We can't elect a liberal left wing president
It's never happened before
FDR didn't exist
We were also in the throughs of the worst global economic crisis.
Conditions now are not nearly as bad as then.
FDR didn't cause the Great Depression
Never said he did - however, with our economy in a pile of shit, Americans would elect anyone who wasn't Hoover, the Republican President who sat by and let the collapse happen After FDR was elected our economy went up.
Thanks, not to his policies, but World War 2
3157
« on: October 15, 2015, 11:56:03 AM »
We can't elect a liberal left wing president
It's never happened before
FDR didn't exist
We were also in the throughs of the worst global economic crisis.
Conditions now are not nearly as bad as then.
throes
Fuck auto correct. Thanks m8
3158
« on: October 15, 2015, 11:51:35 AM »
We can't elect a liberal left wing president
It's never happened before
FDR didn't exist
We were also in the throughs of the worst global economic crisis. Conditions now are not nearly as bad as then.
3159
« on: October 15, 2015, 11:02:10 AM »
Curious to see if there are plans out there, since I could not find any.
There aren't; financing the deficits of things like SS simply cannot be done by increased taxes on the richest in society. There isn't enough potential revenue there, especially given the unintended consequences which will likely ensue. Let's be honest, it isn't all that surprising. Sanders is all rhetoric; he likes to go on about Sweden and their wonderful model of social democracy, despite the fact that--unlike his rhetorical flourishes would have you believe--they don't soak the rich.
Aside from raising taxes on the rich, and on Wall Street, has he stated anyways he would raise revenue?
3160
« on: October 15, 2015, 10:48:17 AM »
All a thread like this communicates is that you already have the notion set in your head, and that trying to convince you would be pointless. You may as well have just said, "Bernie will never win; prove me wrong," which would have been a Flood-tier post. I'm perfectly willing to vote for Sanders, which is the difference. My problem with him and his supporters is that they constantly shout out their big dreams, but I have yet to see or hear any plans outside of "tax the rich!" to get them done. Curious to see if there are plans out there, since I could not find any.
3161
« on: October 15, 2015, 10:46:08 AM »
I leave for my fucking birthday and you idiots destroy half a continent.
Very well.
I believe I have Vietnam and India controlled by now >.>
King Madison invites all Ukranian Empire refugees safehaven into his country. Military ships sent to norther Russian coast, as well as the Indian coast, to begin transport.
3162
« on: October 15, 2015, 10:32:00 AM »
So, apparently I'm wrong for thinking that the Senator from Vermont is an unelectable candidate, that his ideas are far too liberal for a normally conservative nation to accept, all that jazz that been thrown around in every thread.
So, Sanders supporters, convince me. Give me his ideas and how he can have a chance to win this election cycle. Don't just go "He's not Clinton" - give me a reason to believe that.
3163
« on: October 14, 2015, 07:21:55 PM »
Agreed
3164
« on: October 14, 2015, 07:19:48 PM »
Probably tbh
3165
« on: October 14, 2015, 07:18:59 PM »
Registered Democrat.
3166
« on: October 14, 2015, 02:08:10 PM »
So did Colonel Sanders win or nah
non-scientific polls and twitter say yes by a huge margin
so this is either really good or really bad for bernie's future
Also remember that Sanders supporters demographic skews far younger than any other candidate in either party - more of them are on multiple social media pages. Not saying this'll change the results out it Sanders' favor, but going off a non-scientific poll is terrible.
3167
« on: October 13, 2015, 10:53:19 PM »
Since then, they have always been correct.
It's almost as if we hold more power, some might say.
No - your voters are just impatient as fuck.
To seriously address your points, I agree. I can't see Ohio going blue in 2016. Especially considering landslide Republican victories in the midterms.
Either way - Ohio is going to be a warzone this next year. The eventual nominee from either party needs it to win - and Sanders/Clinton is pushing a boulder uphill in a mudslide.
3168
« on: October 13, 2015, 10:49:19 PM »
He's going to struggle, big time, because blue collar workers are not going to just keep voting the same party in time and time again. If the results aren't coming, they're jumping to the other side.
I dunno man, Sanders is really on the side of the union/blue collar people
And yet Obama hasn't helped much over the 8 years. The results aren't there. Assuming a trend holds - Ohio and the general will go to he GOP (Assuming it's not trump)
3169
« on: October 13, 2015, 10:43:32 PM »
Since then, they have always been correct.
It's almost as if we hold more power, some might say.
No - your voters are just impatient as fuck.
3170
« on: October 13, 2015, 10:42:44 PM »
It is also important to note that since 1950, Ohio has rarely voted for the same party three elections in a row: There has actually only been two instances of this occurring: 1952,56,and 60, and 1980, 84, and 88 - both times, they voted Republican for three terms.
Politics is well known for following trends - and Ohio voting Sanders would break a trend almost 70 years established. He's going to struggle, big time.
something something correlation =/= causation
Not especially. Blue collar voters in battleground states are well known for jumping to the other side if the party in power is not producing results quick enough. This gives merit to them supporting Bush in 1988 after 8 years of Reagan - he got the results that voters wanted, so they kept the party in power even longer. Obama, for all he has done, has not gotten the results and change he campaigned on in 08. He got by in 2012, but this election is going to be two new candidates - and people are going to put the Obama Administrations legacy on the ballot as well. If the voters aren't happy with him, chances of the Democrats getting the White House again drops significantly.
3171
« on: October 13, 2015, 10:37:54 PM »
Also piggy-backing off of Ohio's importance:  This is the 1960 electoral college map - when John F Kennedy was elected, over fifty years ago. That was the last time that Ohio voted incorrectly and did not give their votes to the winner. Since then, they have always been correct. 76 with Carter:  92 with Clinton:  '00 with Bush  '08 with Obama  It is also important to note that since 1950, Ohio has rarely voted for the same party three elections in a row: There has actually only been two instances of this occurring: 1952,56,and 60, and 1980, 84, and 88 - both times, they voted Republican for three terms. Politics is well known for following trends - and Ohio voting Sanders would break a trend almost 70 years established. He's going to struggle, big time, because blue collar workers are not going to just keep voting the same party in time and time again. If the results aren't coming, they're jumping to the other side.
3172
« on: October 13, 2015, 10:29:30 PM »
-Clinton is a woman.
-Bernie Sanders doesn't like Wallstreet.
-Chaffe was just happy to be there.
-O'Mally exists.
-And Webb killed a man.
That's the impression I got.
Your pick for winner?
They all suck.
Thought you'd go for Webb
3173
« on: October 13, 2015, 10:28:12 PM »
but don't worry he still has no chance, no, none at all :^)
In a general election? No, he does not.
Sure - he can win a primary by riding on minority and young voters. Once it comes time to sweep states, he's going to be in over his head - especially in Ohio, North Carolina, and Wisconsin - states with blue-collar workers who tend to lean Republican, and are not going to fall for "Change" after 08.
I still don't buy into that. You can't use the 'well it's an old poll' argument this time, either.
Election Matchups in IA, NH New Hampshire going to Sanders in a general is a given - he hails from Vermont, which shares similar political ideologies. And while it is a battleground state, it is one of the less significant - it has 4/5 electoral votes, while nearly every other battleground state runs double digit electoral votes. Also, please note that my post mentioned Wisconsin, North Carolina, and Ohio. Ohio almost always determines the President, and Sanders is going to struggle there, big time.
3174
« on: October 13, 2015, 10:21:27 PM »
-Clinton is a woman.
-Bernie Sanders doesn't like Wallstreet.
-Chaffe was just happy to be there.
-O'Mally exists.
-And Webb killed a man.
That's the impression I got.
Your pick for winner?
3175
« on: October 13, 2015, 10:20:56 PM »
http://www.cnn.com
The CNN damage control is real
Can I get a link to the poll? I can't find it on the website.
3176
« on: October 13, 2015, 10:18:56 PM »
but don't worry he still has no chance, no, none at all :^)
In a general election? No, he does not. Sure - he can win a primary by riding on minority and young voters. Once it comes time to sweep states, he's going to be in over his head - especially in Ohio, North Carolina, and Wisconsin - states with blue-collar workers who tend to lean Republican, and are not going to fall for "Change" after 08.
3177
« on: October 13, 2015, 10:12:34 PM »
 Also, he did 9/11
3178
« on: October 13, 2015, 10:12:04 PM »
lawd
The more sad part is Chaffee has 2% at this time.
3179
« on: October 13, 2015, 10:02:40 PM »
Performance doesn't changer her shitty ideas
All five candidates essentially share the same major ideas - it's their execution and how they want to get changes that is the differences. You're splitting hairs.
3180
« on: October 13, 2015, 10:00:12 PM »
Sanders > Jesus > Webb > O'Malley > Chafee > Satan >>>>>>>> Clinton
If you're honestly gonna stand there and say Chaffee and O'Malley performed better than Clinton, you're deluded by your own bias.
Pages: 1 ... 104105106 107108 ... 306
|
Show Posts